As terrible as this might sound, whenever someone asks me about enlisting, I'm tempted to encourage them. I figure that the more people who enlist, the slimmer the chances that I'll get called back up. But of course this is ridiculous: No one in their right mind would enlist now, whereas I've already signed the papers. I'm now going back to Iraq for a second time because people like me - existing service members - are the only people at the Army's disposal.

Looking back, would I have joined the military if I were doing something that I loved? Or had a job that paid $100,000 a year? Probably not. Those are the men and women I feel that we need to mail these letters to. Let's see what happens when they receive letters telling them to put on a uniform and ship out immediately to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know I won't get any sympathy at all from the "you dumb ass you signed the contract!" crowd, which is fine, but I really was looking forward to applying my GI Bill to photography classes so I could learn how to take pictures. But now, thanks to not enough Americans volunteering for military service, I now have to worry about my picture appearing on the second or third page of my hometown paper with the words, "it was his second deployment" in my obituary.

OYE Comment: Please see the posts written on VoteVets.org. Both commentaries by Brandon Friedman and ThisDudesArmy eclipse anything we would say.

Hey fruitcake, yes you gonad boy, zip it, Tzziiit, now what part stoploss, pulling thousands from IRR and lowering reqruitment standards and GOALs do you NOT understand? Maybe someone can help you figure it out, not me, I would rather you moved from the red koolaid to the purple koolaid (don't tell anyone but thats where I put the cyanide)!!!!!!

Recruiting is easier in a slow economy, which limits other job possibilities that are available. But officials also noted that the Army and Marines have added recruiters as well as bonuses and other special benefits to attract more recruits in the midst of the unpopular war in Iraq.

If the economy was the only concern, why is the Marine Corps doing far better with its recruitment and retention goals? After all, airmen and sailors are far, far less likely to serve in combat. If the only concern was having a paycheck, it seems to me that new recruits would take the John Kerry route and enlist for duty in which they would be unlikely to see combat.

Of course, I didn't say he didn't. I said he volunteered for duty in which he believed he would be extremely unlikely to see combat. I realize reading comprehension is not the Green Baboons' strong suit, but please try to keep up.

"Don't tell the troll that Kerry did select a MOS that did run the risk of seeing combat."

That's a false statement. At the time Kerry volunteered for swift boat duty, swift boats patrolled the coastline and rarely saw combat. The mission of the swift boats changbed after Kerry volunteered. After that, Kerry gamed the system to leave Vietnam nine months before he should have.

Quick question...have you ever had an original thought or have you simply decided to listen to your betters in the GOP and parrot them? This is like listening to a Rush Limbaugh show...just without the entertainment value...Next you're going to be talking about "Moonbats."

I'm just trying to get you to admit that you submissively accept the arguments and catch-phrases of your GOP betters...In the case of the GOP standard issue catch-word "moonbat," you could have easily said that you don't use it. Instead, you change the subject. C'mon...simply admit that you use it all the time...

Why do you insist on badmouthing the troops? Dismissing what we have to say? Did you ever bother to read the comments of the vets who actually have the balls to go to war and engage in actual combat? Are they “lying or ignorant” too? Hey, I bet you have one of those "cold war veteran" hats that makes you feel like a real badass huh?

Groen, why do you hate the troops so much? Is it because we're the men you never were and always wished to be? Maybe in the next life you'll man up and not skip out on all these wonderful wars.

Semper Fi, chickensh*t

-ErnieSgt. 1st Tanks USMCOEF 2001-2002OIF 2003

Iraq/Afghanistan vet to Groen: "Seen much combat?"Groen's answer: "I've seen a little on tv."

Since I never said that ElLimpo uses the term "moonbat," I'll say that I'm not able to do so...Having responded to your question, it's now time for you to answer one...How often do you use the catchphrase "moonbat," a term you've submissively accepted from your superiors in the GOP?

This dishonest and cowardly tactic has been used before. You and your fellow Green Baboons cannot counter my arguments so you lie and say I am badmouthing the troops. You cannot cite a single example of where I have badmouthed the service of anyone who has participated in OIF.In fact, every example of someone badmouthing another's service here has been directed at me from your fellow Green Baboons.

My contention is that Wek (who admits he never served in the military) and the other Green Baboons' argument that those who have not served in the military must forfeit their First Amendment right to voice their support for OIF and the war on terrorism in general is dishonest and unAmerican. If you cannot counter my contention with legitimate points, I strongly suggest that you find something else to do. Your lies only weaken the Green Baboon argument.

"Since I never said that ElLimpo uses the term "moonbat," I'll say that I'm not able to do so...Having responded to your question, it's now time for you to answer one...How often do you use the catchphrase "moonbat," a term you've submissively accepted from your superiors in the GOP?"

Actually, you said I was parroting Rush Limbaugh and the GOP leadership when I used the term "moonbat." Show us where Limbaugh and/or the GOP leadership have used that term.

You're living proof that "No Child Left Behind" came too late...Either you were never tutored concerning reading comprehension or you've submissively accepted the "debate" tactics of your GOP betters.

This is an example of a tactic known as a "strawman." When a GOPer is asked a question, he changes the subject and attributes to his opponent a statement that was never made and then demands that his opponent defend it. Since the statement was never made in the first place, it's impossible to defend. You've submissively accepted not only the catchphrases from your better but also submissively accepted their tactics...So...just to play Kevy's little game, I'll say, "No, I can't prove that Rush Limbaugh or the GOP leadership have used the term "moonbat." Now it's your turn to answer a question Kevy...How often do you use the term "moonbat"?

There's no problem with my reading comprehension, but there are obviously major issues with yours.

You accused me of parroting the talking points of Rush Limbaugh and the GOP leadership when I use the term "moonbat." My asking you to show us where Limbaugh and/or the GOP leadership have used the term "moonbat" is not changing the subject and is not a "strawman." In fact, it is a highly relevant question. If you cannot show us where Limbaugh and the GOP leadership have used "moonbat," then you have no basis on which to make the charge that I mimic Limbaugh and the GOP leadership when I use the term.

You really cannot be this dense, can you? I suspect that you're merely offering nonsensical arguments here because you crave for attention.

Man, Kevy, your submissiveness knows no bounds...Your betters must have instructed you never to answer a question and you're doing them proud...This is what in the debate world is known as a "triple Groeny." It consists of 1) a repetition of a strawman argument; 2) avoidance of the question; and 3) an ad hominem attack (and no, Kevy, "ad hominem" does not mean that I'm accusing you of being gay...I just wanted to explain that since it's clear that you were probably homeschooled).

Since I've already said that I could not point to any example of ElLimpo or the "GOP leadership using the phrase "moonbat," I've already answered your question. How about you answer mine:

In addition to taking a course in reading comprehension, I strongly suggest you take a course in logic after you graduate from high school. It is clear that you have no idea what a strawman argument is.

"Since I've already said that I could not point to any example of ElLimpo or the "GOP leadership using the phrase "moonbat,"...."

Well, if you cannot point to a single example, then it is clear that your contention that I mimic Limbaugh and the GOP leadership when I use the term "moonbat" is not based on the facts.

I wasn't home-schooled, but it appears to me that you went to an average government school. You lack the capacity to think and reason.

I suggest that it's YOU who missed out on some vocabulary when you were homeschooled (although homeschooling was probably better than Kansas public schools). Here's the definition of "strawman" from M/W:

Main Entry: straw man Function: noun Date: 1886 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

So let's get back to the original question...How ofter do you use the term "moonbat?"

I see you found it necessary to look up straw man for a definition. Now maybe you realize that I did not raise a straw-man argument. Your failure to show where Limbaugh and/or the GOP leadership used the term "moonbat" is relevant to your claim that I parrot Limbaugh and GOP talking points when I use the term. Obviously, if they did not use the term, then I could not parrot them.

Also, if you had a lick of sense you would have noticed that home-schooled kids are winning all those national spelling bees.

You're also ignorant abvout public schools in Kansas. Kansas schools are above average. The school district in Lawrence, Kan., is actually ranked as #8 in the nation amongst metros with populations under 500,000.http://www.expansionmanagement.com/smo/DocReserve/DocReserve_Content/1a-Small%20Metros.pdf

It might be a good idea for you to end this thread before you make more of an ass out of yourself.

Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...Is a good submissive supposed to get so testy?...Your superiors might be displeased with you for being so obvious in your tactics...You have gone pretty far afield to avoid answering a very, very simple question...

So let's get back to the original question...How ofter do you use the term "moonbat?"

Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...It's cute how you just keep fouling the easy pitches off...

Once again we have a "triple Groeny" (a question avoidance, strawman & an ad hominem attack). C'mon...'fess up...admit that you regularly toss out the same old catchphrases like your masters instruct you...How ofter do you use the term "moonbat?" As Sister Genoveffa used to tell us..."Tell the truth & shame the devil." It's not like you're engaging in a debate anywhere...

"C'mon...'fess up...admit that you regularly toss out the same old catchphrases like your masters instruct you."

You're simply an idiot. We have already established that you cannot show us where my so-called "masters" have used the term "moonbat." If they have not used the term, then it follows that I cannot parrot them when I use the term.

I think you have overtaken robash as the most ignorant poster on this blog. Congratulations.

Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...Please don't get so cross...Insults and yet another (now) classic "triple Groeny." You should be glad that this medium isn't moderated or at some point you might be forced to answer a question...I know, that's highly unlikely as it might displease your masters...

If you're congratulating me, does that mean I get a prize? How about this one?

Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...Y'all must be getting tired...again just a "double Groeny" (question avoidance & strawman creation). I gotta give you credit. Your masters would be absolutely proud of their little Kevy today. Imagine, their little chickenhawk was able to go an entire day without responding to a single question, regardless of the the exact wording. That had to require some real effort, since anonymouse is apparently the only person in the world who deigned to event engage him in conversation. Does that mean you get a gift along the lines of a visit from Jeff Gannon as a reward? And to repeat a question you've been unable to answer:

Gene writes:There is no reason to pay attention to a "marine" who defends chickenhawks who escaped combat in Vietnam and champions chickenhawks who have no intention of going to Iraq.

Isn't that strange?

I've sadly seen this tendency in my own fellow veterans that Robash and I served with - a disdain for democrats that have served but a willingness to 'protect' right-wingers that never served yet advocate for war.

And on the recent G W Busch off topic of appeasement Saint Reagan must be the King since his withdrawal from Lebanon after the 83 Beirut bombing is THE EVENT, OBL cites as the proof America is unwilling to suffer casualties. Even James S. Robbins agrees with blaming Reagan.http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/robbins111601.shtml

I didn't write that Kerry did not see combat. You Green Baboons really need to work on your reading comprehension. Here is what I wrote:

"... it seems to me that new recruits would take the John Kerry route and enlist for duty in which they would be unlikely to see combat."

It is a fact that Kerry volunteered for duty in which he was unlikely to see combat. Here is it straight from the horse's mouth:

“When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.”http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

"Groenhagen, seeing as you joined a non-combat MOS (The G2) did you make an equivalent choice as John Kerry?"

As an enlisted Marine 0231, you know that you would see combat during war. That is why every Marine must qualify with the M-16.

And I most certainly would not have used minor scratches to get Purple Hearts and leave the combat zone nine early like Kerry did.

"And on the recent G W Busch off topic of appeasement Saint Reagan must be the King since his withdrawal from Lebanon after the 83 Beirut bombing is THE EVENT, OBL cites as the proof America is unwilling to suffer casualties. Even James S. Robbins agrees with blaming Reagan."

Actually, that is not true, but I wouldn't expect one of you ignorant Green Baboons to know that. THE EVENT was Clinton leaving Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident.

“As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger,” bin Laden said. “He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families.”http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

The Robbins piece you linked to mentions the Somalia incident, but you apparently missed that.

Kevy, you're going to get in trouble with your masters, don't you know that the National Review is supposed to be sacrosact to you YEs?

In addition to the other typical "Groenys," this last post is demonstrative of another neocon debating style we all know as "cherrypicking." This is the selective use of research to prove your point. I believe that if you look at the original interview, OBL's Somalia reference was in direct response to a question on that country. So, while it is technically true that OBL refers to it in the PBS piece, you ignore there are other references about his perceptions on America's staying power. Such selective use of research is likely something that you learned at the knee of your masters.

Pretty weak, anonymouse. The Black Hawk Down incident, unlike the 1983 Marine barracks bombing, involved al Qaeda. Of course, bin Laden would consider that a greater disgrace for the U.S. since he played a role in the event. That is why I can easily find a bin Laden quote regarding Somalia (18 killed) and grung did not include a simiular bin Laden quote concerning Beirut (241 killed).

Of course, greater still than Beirut and Somalia was Clinton's weak response in 1998 after al Qaeda's bombings of two U.S. embassies and his failure to retaliate after the USS Cole was bombed in October 2000. “The failure to respond publicly again emboldened bin Laden and his top aides,” Gerald Posner noted in Why America Slept. “America was capable of being struck, and the country seemed unwilling to retaliate. By the time of the Cole attack, bin Laden and al Qaeda were already working on the biggest terror attack ever devised. Nothing in the U.S. response made them rethink their decision to try and bring down the World Trade Center towers in New York.”

You continue to display your ignorance, anonymouse. It was a wise choice (for once) for you to not use your actual name here.

Kevy, please refrain from trying to sound like you were able to quickly Google a quotation up after reading the previous post. In all likelihood, you merely pulled up a piece of that "book" that you're constantly pushing that noone has ever read...

BTW, it didn't take alot of researching, but it's easy to find quotations linking the withdrawal from Lebanon as one of OBL's inspirations...

"They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy."

You're cracking me up. There's your poor reading comprehension again. The quote you provided is not from bin Laden. As I mentioned above, it was easy to find a quote in which bin Laden referred to Somalia.

You're criticism concerning "cherry-picking" is also a bit selective (as well as dishonest). It was grung who claimed that Beirut was THE EVENT inspireed al Qaeda. However, he offered a link to an NR article that also mentioned Vietnam and Somalia. It was your fellow Green Baboon who was cherry-picking.

Trollhagen points out the purple heart band aid story, while at the same time endorsing himself as a combat vet because he qual'ed with an M-16.

Actually Trollhagen must be a genius because he is able to hold two diametrically opposed viewpoints at the same time (Trolhagen is a combat vet because he was in the service, whereas Kerry who was in Vietnam and was wounded is not a combat vet because of right wing talking points) Pure Genius! I'm sure Trollhagen would want Bush to be awarded the Air Force Combat Action Medal for landing on a Carrier during a time of "War".

I also think the Afghan-Soviet War began on 20 Jan 1993 and Clinto gave the mujahedeen a bunch of 'Stinger' missiles.

And didn't Clinton invade Somalia in the first place on 20 Jan 1993, with an ill-defined war plan and no end in sight other than We'll stand down when They stand up.

And the WTC bombings BOTH occurred on Clinton's term of Presidency.

And Clinton didn't allocate 3 Trillion dollars to the DoD during his tenure obviously indicating he hates America. Because the only way to win with the military is with Trident Submarines, scores of Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers, Ospreys, B-2 bombers, MOABs...

"Trollhagen points out the purple heart band aid story, while at the same time endorsing himself as a combat vet because he qual'ed with an M-16."

I think we might have to hold a charity event for you Green Baboons so we can have a remedial reading course for you guys. You're a complete airhead. I seriously doubt that you served because I don't believe you could have possibly scored high enough to be accepted.

Here we have another "double Groeny": A strawman argument (I never said OBL said it...BTW, do you know who DID say it?) as well as a subject change...Didn't you swipe the quotation from that "Book" that no one has read?

Still don't know what a straw man is, do you? You looked the word up and still don't know what it is. You're an incredibly ignorant person.

Hey, how come you're such a coward that you refuse to use your real name here? Is it because we would learn that you, like Wek and most of the others posting here, are merely a Democrat Party operative and not an actual veteran?

Kevy...beautiful quad Groeny there, little fella...A new record...Let's recap...TWO ducked questions, a strawman argument AND an ad hominem attack...It's a good thing they don't let you out of the house very often little fella, you could get hurt out there!

Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...only a single Groeney here (ad hominem attack)...are we getting tired little fella...Why don't you grab some warm Bosco and take a nap...Ask mommy to put the cartoons on for you while you go to sleep...

Come on. If I'm a little fella who lives in his mommy's basement, you shouldn't be afraid of me. Share your real name, coward. I'm betting that your a pimply-faced College Democrat who never spent a day in uniform.

Hit the nail on the head, didn't I? We all know why you're too cowardly to use your real name here and we all know that you're a joke, as are the rest of the Green Baboons here. You're just a pimply-faced College Democrat who never spent a day in uniform. You're probably Wek's boyfriend.

Kevy, Kevy, Kevy...It's good to see that you ended last week much the same as you spent it...with a double Groeney (a ducked question and an ad hominem attack). If I can't compliment you on your debate skills, everyone can at least admore your consistency.

And, parenthetically, life would be great if only I was still in college!

I didn't write that Kerry did not see combat. You Green Baboons really need to work on your reading comprehension. Here is what I wrote:

"... it seems to me that new recruits would take the John Kerry route and enlist for duty in which they would be unlikely to see combat."

Yee haw for your ability to cut and paste. Fact is, he DID see combat, the lies of Mann Coulter et al. notwithstanding. As I pointed out, at least 'librals' are consistent, as opposed to pseudomacho right wingers who get their rich connected daddies to help make sure that they will never see combat, like Limbaugh, Quayle, etc.

And then of course there are those who enlist in the Marines to brag about their machismo and patriotism but enlist to do paperwork.

And now let's take a look at the yellow elephant's logic:

It is a fact that Kerry volunteered for duty in which he was unlikely to see combat. Here is it straight from the horse's mouth:

“When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.”http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

"And then of course there are those who enlist in the Marines to brag about their machismo and patriotism but enlist to do paperwork."

There they go again. You Green Baboons just can't help denigrating the service of others.

"Yeah, patrols never see combat..."

There's that reading comprehension problem yet again. You even copied and pasted the relevant part of Kerry's quote and still missed the point. Here it is again: "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war."

Kerry first tried to get a deferment to study in Paris. When that fell through, he volunteered for service that "had very little to do with the war." Those are the facts.

And I continue to laugh at Green Baboons such as doppelganger who question the courage of others yet post here using a pseudonym. That takes a great deal of courage, doesn't it, squirt?